It just has to do with the "spelling" of words; some kanji combinations use 所, and some use 処. As far as I know, there are no words that can go either way.

When using the character by itself and reading it as ところ, modern Japanese always uses 所. My advice is, learn how to read, write, say, and use 所, and only learn to read and understand the meaning of 処, as you will probably never see it anywhere other than on signs for restaraunts.

keatonatron wrote:It just has to do with the "spelling" of words; some kanji combinations use 所, and some use 処. As far as I know, there are no words that can go either way.

It's a little hard to tell from google hits because in many cases it's hard to say whether 処/所 was intended to be read as か or どころ. For instance, 在処 is probably ありか and 住処 is probably すみか but you never know for sure. (Not that it matters; I don't think there's any difference between ありか and ありどころ.)

well, I've noticed as I am taking Japanese 120... which is Japanese Modern Literature-- we've looked at writings from Natsume Soseki and other Japanese writers... The処 is used and 所 is hardly used... however, now it's opposite...

This is my gathering. Language changes constantly... Nomu to drink is written in a different kanji... and so is wakaru to understand.

Kanji is always being not replaced... but used different.

in a dictionary: 分る分かる判る解るcan all be used to mean understand...however. we use the second one most. even with it's irregular okurigana.

Just like decentralization is spelled decentralisation look it up on blank word document.

Old English (even the British use s instead of z) Modernization uses z cause that's what we translate as the sound to be.

mongol800 wrote:This is my gathering. Language changes constantly... Nomu to drink is written in a different kanji... and so is wakaru to understand.

Kanji is always being not replaced... but used different.

Originally (in China) there was no real system to kanji. People would create new kanji for new words and ideas all the time. Depending on region, the kanji people used could be completely different.

Then things got even worse when kanji came to Japan; since kanji wasn't made for the Japanese language, it had to be adapted to fit. Mix that with the fact that the people using it were all figuring it out for the first time, and things totally got out of control. You could ask 20 people to write the same word, and they could very well all use a different kanji for it, simply because the pronunciation for each of those kanji sounded the same to them (and happened to fit the word they wanted to write).

Jump ahead to modern times, when people finally are literate enough and have the means to start setting standards and attempt to correct the problem. The first step was simplifying traditional Chinese characters. The next step was setting rules for which kanji mean what. In Japan, there was a huge standardization movement after world war 2; that shows you just how recent the standardization of kanji is. Now that everyone can read and we have computers programmed with the most common choices, people tend to use the same kanji as everyone else. I can assume in Souseki's day, things weren't that simple.

I'd call it irregular. "Irregular" doesn't necessarily mean "inconsistent". In Spanish, there are simple and consistent verb patterns (for instance, vowels that shift very predictably when stressed) that nonetheless are almost invariably called irregular. The thing that those two things have in common -- that particular okurigana usage and Spanish "irregular" verbs -- is that they're non-productive. That is, they're closed-class verbs and no more verbs of that kind are likely to appear. It's not that the verbs are inconsistent, but rather that they're inconsistent with patterns that are still productive. If 分かる didn't have the history it did, it'd be spelled 分る. (Sometimes it is anyway, but never mind that. )

To me, irregular means unpredictable on the basis of rules or patterns. 分かる is completely predictable based on the okurigana rules, which are based in large part on historical derivation. The reason 帰る has only る as the okurigana but 変える has える is from historical derivation -- 変える comes from classical 変ふ, whereas 帰る does not derive from any underlying verb but has always been 帰る. There is no irregularity here.

But the rule I follow is that okurigana for ichidan verbs begins on the penultimate kana of the dictionary form and okurigana for godan verbs begins on the ultimate kana, a rule that 分かる violates. It's obviously less consistent than your rule, but, as I don't study Classical Japanese, it's probably easier to deal with. 変える and 帰る are still neatly explained by it, for instance.